There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
Except for its huge, gaping hole called the Eastern Front.
What would you recommend reading on this?
I’d just be wary of starting with Churchill, as great a writer as he was, etc. I’m a Churchill admirer, but the man made a lot of mistakes, and I think his history glosses over that to some extent.
You have got to be kidding. Churchill is a great place to start. Churchills mistakes were nowhere near as important as his successes. Chuchill gives a solid foundation from which to explore other views.
Except for the fact that it is a very biased version of history. British Army performance in WWII was generally the worst of the Big 3, and certainly the least significant. Not gonna get that from Churchill. And again, he barely talks about the Eastern Front, by far the most important theater of the whole war. There are other big omissions, like Ultra, for obvious reasons. [/quote]
If the British army was so incompetent why did the American army send it’s Ranger units to the British commando school and why do they continue to pay homage to that time?
The U.S. Army Special Forces wear the green beret because of their link to the British Commandos of World War II. The first Ranger unit, commonly known as Darby’s Rangers, was formed in Northern Ireland during the summer of 1942. On completion of training at the Commando Training Depot at Achnacarry Castle in Scotland, those Rangers had the right to wear the British Commando green beret
Anzio was an American graveyard, especially for the Rangers. The British losses at the Normandy landings were a fraction of the American losses. The Russian losses were astronomical. They lost over 50,000 taking Berlin. That is ten percent of Britains total war dead.
The Germans called the Scottish soldiers the Ladies From Hell. The Germans had a tendency to shoot captured soldiers wearing kilts because they were feared. That is why Scots were known to swap the pants off of dead English soldiers for their kilts before surrendering.
[quote]
Churchill is obviously worth reading. I am just saying it is not a good place to build a foundation of knowledge on the Second World War. [/quote]
You are much better off knowing what Churchill had to say about something before you go delving into the writings of a lesser man who may have his head up his ass. Otherwise you could end up filling your head with bullshit first.
[quote]
More importantly, as I said, he pretty much ignores the Eastern Front, due to both lack of information and Cold War politics. That was where the war was won. Period. The Germans never had less than 2/3 to 3/4 of their divisions there, usually including the Wehrmacht and SS’s best.
The battle of Britain was where the war was lost. The invasion of Greece caused the invasion of Russia to fail.
Very tenuous. The war was won and lost on the Russian steppe. Yes, Hitler got a late start, because of Italian bungling in the Balkans. It does not therefore follow that the war was lost in the Battle of Britain, regardless of Churchill’s (highly questionable) decision to send some of Britain’s best troops to support the Greeks. [/quote]
Not at all. Airpower came of age in World War Two. The amount of training that the prewar Luftwaffe pilots recieved far exceeded the amount of training the wartime pilots received. The loss of pilots in the Battle of Britain was never made up for.
What was left of the experienced ME 109 pilots had to be deployed to Greece to support the invasion. By the time they had all been relocated back up North along with their support crews over a month had been lost for the invasion of Russia.
The German army was in the outer suburbs of Moscow when the first snows began to fall and the winter halted the advance. If they had gotten there a month earlier they could have taken Moscow. Moscow was the main railhead for all of Russia. If they had lost Moscow the Russians would have lost the ability to use the railroads to move men and materiel around.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Perhaps not, but would not the US as legitimately send bombers to destroy, absolutely, the ports, the rails, the infrastructure, and the civilians.
No.
The bomb dropping was a completely political move. The Japanese were already on the verge of surrender. The US military would not have wasted more resources on this effort since it was already over.[/quote]
You do not know what you are talking about. You have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the Japanese Samurai culture or the code of Bushido.
The Japanese army never would have surrendered the homeland without a fight. Even after the two atomic bombs were dropped on them the military leaders wanted to continue the war. It was only the intervention of the emporer (after an attempted coup de tat where he was taken hostage) that ended it.
You should watch the movie Letters from Iwo Jima sometime.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Lies. What history book do you believe. Do not believe the official story.[/quote]
It is called “critical thinking.”
It requires reading more than one book, and more than Lew Rockwell’s website.
This is why I quoted the original letters, and the verified reports of the generals’ meeting.
It is called “facts.”
If the only facts you consider, Lifty, originate between your ears, there is no reason for anyone to respect any of your opinions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Perhaps not, but would not the US as legitimately send bombers to destroy, absolutely, the ports, the rails, the infrastructure, and the civilians.
No.
The bomb dropping was a completely political move. The Japanese were already on the verge of surrender. The US military would not have wasted more resources on this effort since it was already over.
You do not know what you’re talking about. The war was far from over at that point. The Japanese mainland had not been taken and it would have had to have been for the war to end. They were NOT ready to surrender. You have got to do a better job with your homework.[/quote]
You’re correct. About thirty years ago I did a class project on the development of the bomb to the dropping of the bomb. The Japanese were not ready to surrender. and we didn’t drop it because we hated yellow people.
Roosevelt had inquired when the bomb would be ready and was thinking about deploying it at the Battle of the Bulge.
There is no better source with which to start than Winston Churchill’s 6 volume history. It is also is a demonstration of the mastery of language, writing, research and memory, all by one individual who had command–for better and for worse-at the center of the War.
Except for its huge, gaping hole called the Eastern Front.
What would you recommend reading on this?
I’d just be wary of starting with Churchill, as great a writer as he was, etc. I’m a Churchill admirer, but the man made a lot of mistakes, and I think his history glosses over that to some extent.
You have got to be kidding. Churchill is a great place to start. Churchills mistakes were nowhere near as important as his successes. Chuchill gives a solid foundation from which to explore other views.
Except for the fact that it is a very biased version of history. British Army performance in WWII was generally the worst of the Big 3, and certainly the least significant. Not gonna get that from Churchill. And again, he barely talks about the Eastern Front, by far the most important theater of the whole war. There are other big omissions, like Ultra, for obvious reasons.
If the British army was so incompetent why did the American army send it’s Ranger units to the British commando school and why do they continue to pay homage to that time?
The U.S. Army Special Forces wear the green beret because of their link to the British Commandos of World War II. The first Ranger unit, commonly known as Darby’s Rangers, was formed in Northern Ireland during the summer of 1942. On completion of training at the Commando Training Depot at Achnacarry Castle in Scotland, those Rangers had the right to wear the British Commando green beret
Anzio was an American graveyard, especially for the Rangers. The British losses at the Normandy landings were a fraction of the American losses. The Russian losses were astronomical. They lost over 50,000 taking Berlin. That is ten percent of Britains total war dead.
The Germans called the Scottish soldiers the Ladies From Hell. The Germans had a tendency to shoot captured soldiers wearing kilts because they were feared. That is why Scots were known to swap the pants off of dead English soldiers for their kilts before surrendering.
Churchill is obviously worth reading. I am just saying it is not a good place to build a foundation of knowledge on the Second World War.
You are much better off knowing what Churchill had to say about something before you go delving into the writings of a lesser man who may have his head up his ass. Otherwise you could end up filling your head with bullshit first.
More importantly, as I said, he pretty much ignores the Eastern Front, due to both lack of information and Cold War politics. That was where the war was won. Period. The Germans never had less than 2/3 to 3/4 of their divisions there, usually including the Wehrmacht and SS’s best.
The battle of Britain was where the war was lost. The invasion of Greece caused the invasion of Russia to fail.
Very tenuous. The war was won and lost on the Russian steppe. Yes, Hitler got a late start, because of Italian bungling in the Balkans. It does not therefore follow that the war was lost in the Battle of Britain, regardless of Churchill’s (highly questionable) decision to send some of Britain’s best troops to support the Greeks.
Not at all. Airpower came of age in World War Two. The amount of training that the prewar Luftwaffe pilots recieved far exceeded the amount of training the wartime pilots received. The loss of pilots in the Battle of Britain was never made up for.
What was left of the experienced ME 109 pilots had to be deployed to Greece to support the invasion. By the time they had all been relocated back up North along with their support crews over a month had been lost for the invasion of Russia.
The German army was in the outer suburbs of Moscow when the first snows began to fall and the winter halted the advance. If they had gotten there a month earlier they could have taken Moscow. Moscow was the main railhead for all of Russia. If they had lost Moscow the Russians would have lost the ability to use the railroads to move men and materiel around. [/quote]
Sifu,
Lots here to think about.
I will be looking forward to the English translation of an acquaintance, Mezhiritsky’s “Reading Marshall Zhukov.” My understanding of Glantz’ and Suvorov’s perspectives is primitive, but my friend promises that his original research on Stalin’s motivation will be eye-opening.
With regard to Churchill: one may not have to start there, but the education is incomplete without him. (“History will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” And he did.)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
Perhaps not, but would not the US as legitimately send bombers to destroy, absolutely, the ports, the rails, the infrastructure, and the civilians.
No.
The bomb dropping was a completely political move. The Japanese were already on the verge of surrender. The US military would not have wasted more resources on this effort since it was already over.
You do not know what you’re talking about. The war was far from over at that point. The Japanese mainland had not been taken and it would have had to have been for the war to end. They were NOT ready to surrender. You have got to do a better job with your homework.[/quote]
I actually tend (slightly) to agree with you. But it is not an open and shut case like you seem to think.
Thanks for the recommendations. I am going to buy the Churchill books on CD. I spend an insane amount of time in the car for work every week, so this is the best format for me right now.
For anyone else interested, the original book additions are:
The Gathering Storm
Their Finest Hour
The Grand Alliance
The Hinge of Fate
The Closing Ring
Triumph and Tragedy
The CDs are of the the 4 volume set that does cover all 6 original volumes. Each are about 10hrs. The CDs available from audible.com:
Milestones to Disaster
Alone
The Grand Alliance
Triumph and Tragedy - not available yet.
Hopefully by the time I get to the last one, it is available.
The Gathering Storm is a book that is highly relevant to today. There are a lot of parallels between then and now. Important, costly, lessons have been forgotten.
You’re right, it’s just like 1938! Ahmedinejad is the new Hitler! Or wait, is it Kim Jong-Il? Moronic.
In the build up to and the early part of the war serious mistakes were made because people stubbornly refused to face up to what they were dealing with.
In 1936 when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland the French should have sent their army in. Hitler admitted to a friend afterwards that he would have withdrawn his army if he had been opposed.
They wouldn’t even have had to fight. All they needed to do was show some determination to stand up to Hitler and he would have backed down. But people were so afraid of getting into a fight that they let him go unchecked and the world paid a terrible price for it.
Even in 1939 when the German army was bogged down in Poland the road to Berlin was wide open. The French army was the biggest army in Europe and the had the British to back them up. When Churchill said they should do it people derided him as a war monger. The period of time between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France is called the Phoney war.
The relevance to today is people didn’t want take a stand because they didn’t want to accept just how bad the people they were dealing with really were. So they pushed the confrontation date back. When they finally did have the confrontation it was much deadlier than it would have been if they had not procrastinated.
Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996. We had over five years to send in the Delta Force and kill him. Instead we used the French strategy of Phoney war and waited for him to come and hit us.[/quote]
You’re right, nineteen guys with box cutters flying two planes into a pair of buildings is just like building one of the greatest armies in history and then conquering most of Europe in two years. How did we not see the signs?! History repeats itself!
You have got to be kidding. Churchill is a great place to start. Churchills mistakes were nowhere near as important as his successes. Chuchill gives a solid foundation from which to explore other views.
Except for the fact that it is a very biased version of history. British Army performance in WWII was generally the worst of the Big 3, and certainly the least significant. Not gonna get that from Churchill. And again, he barely talks about the Eastern Front, by far the most important theater of the whole war. There are other big omissions, like Ultra, for obvious reasons.
If the British army was so incompetent why did the American army send it’s Ranger units to the British commando school and why do they continue to pay homage to that time?
The U.S. Army Special Forces wear the green beret because of their link to the British Commandos of World War II. The first Ranger unit, commonly known as Darby’s Rangers, was formed in Northern Ireland during the summer of 1942. On completion of training at the Commando Training Depot at Achnacarry Castle in Scotland, those Rangers had the right to wear the British Commando green beret
Anzio was an American graveyard, especially for the Rangers. The British losses at the Normandy landings were a fraction of the American losses. The Russian losses were astronomical. They lost over 50,000 taking Berlin. That is ten percent of Britains total war dead.
The Germans called the Scottish soldiers the Ladies From Hell. The Germans had a tendency to shoot captured soldiers wearing kilts because they were feared. That is why Scots were known to swap the pants off of dead English soldiers for their kilts before surrendering.
[/quote]
No need to get your BNP panties in a bunch. The Normandy and Russian casualty points are mostly BS (easier beaches, Germans had the bulk of their troops in the East as I said, race war nature/atrocities on the Eastern Front). If you’re as well versed in the Second World War as you claim to be you should know all this.
No one is slandering British courage or the commandos. The point is that British troops, generally, were badly led, from subalterns up to field marshals. The best people to ask, the Germans themselves, felt this way. Yes, you can think of plenty of exceptions (Slim being the best one). Broadly, generally, relatively, etc., the British Army did not do a great job in World War II. They also had a much steeper learning curve than U.S. forces. Witness the Desert War. When they did win big battles, it was usually by weight of men and material, not superior tactical or operational skill.
In World War I though, they are only now really getting their due in the popular histories, they won that war on the battlefield, greatest victory in British military history.
If it is your introduction to a subject, you are probably better off getting it from a (relatively) unbiased historian rather than from one of the principals whose dated history has enormous blind spots. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand.
What does this have to do with anything? Air superiority was not a problem for the Germans during Barbarossa.
[quote]
The German army was in the outer suburbs of Moscow when the first snows began to fall and the winter halted the advance. If they had gotten there a month earlier they could have taken Moscow. Moscow was the main railhead for all of Russia. If they had lost Moscow the Russians would have lost the ability to use the railroads to move men and materiel around. [/quote]
The Germans also came incredibly close to victory in Russia in 1942. Read Robert Citino’s newest stuff on this point.
You have got to be kidding. Churchill is a great place to start. Churchills mistakes were nowhere near as important as his successes. Chuchill gives a solid foundation from which to explore other views.
Except for the fact that it is a very biased version of history. British Army performance in WWII was generally the worst of the Big 3, and certainly the least significant. Not gonna get that from Churchill. And again, he barely talks about the Eastern Front, by far the most important theater of the whole war. There are other big omissions, like Ultra, for obvious reasons.
If the British army was so incompetent why did the American army send it’s Ranger units to the British commando school and why do they continue to pay homage to that time?
The U.S. Army Special Forces wear the green beret because of their link to the British Commandos of World War II. The first Ranger unit, commonly known as Darby’s Rangers, was formed in Northern Ireland during the summer of 1942. On completion of training at the Commando Training Depot at Achnacarry Castle in Scotland, those Rangers had the right to wear the British Commando green beret
Anzio was an American graveyard, especially for the Rangers. The British losses at the Normandy landings were a fraction of the American losses. The Russian losses were astronomical. They lost over 50,000 taking Berlin. That is ten percent of Britains total war dead.
The Germans called the Scottish soldiers the Ladies From Hell. The Germans had a tendency to shoot captured soldiers wearing kilts because they were feared. That is why Scots were known to swap the pants off of dead English soldiers for their kilts before surrendering.
No need to get your BNP panties in a bunch. The Normandy and Russian casualty points are mostly BS (easier beaches, Germans had the bulk of their troops in the East as I said, race war nature/atrocities on the Eastern Front). If you’re as well versed in the Second World War as you claim to be you should know all this. [/quote]
You don’t know what you are talking about. The reason why the British had an easier time at Normandy is because they took risks that the Americans wouldn’t take. To begin with there was the naval bombardment. The Royal navy went in close to the beaches to do their bombardment. This allowed them to use a flat trajectory for their shells which allowed them to shoot straight at the German fortifications and obliterate them.
The American navy didn’t want to risk it’s ships getting hit so they stood off and bombarded from a distance. To do that they had to use a high arching trajectory where they lobbed the shells in. So instead of taking out the German fortifications the American shells went inland and landed on a bunch of French farmers.
Then when it came to get men and materiel on the beaches the American strategy of staying offshore cause more problems because the landing craft were put off course and ended up landing a mile up the coast from where they were supposed to. This actually worked out to their advantage because the beach they were supposed to land on turned out to be the most heavily defended section in Normandy.
Then there was the issue of tank support. The British had modified a number of Sherman tanks so that they could operate in water like a boat so that the troops on the beaches would have tank support. The British landing craft took the tanks in so close to the shore that the bottom of their hulls were scraping the bottom before they dropped them off and the tanks just had to wade ahore. So the British infantry had tank support on the beaches which made a big difference.
The British also modifed a number of tanks for the Americans. But instead of taking them in as close to the beaches as they could the Americans dumped them out of their landing craft out in the English channel. The tanks became swamped and sank to the bottom where they remain. So the Americans didn’t have tank support and paid the price.
The British handeled themselves a lot more competantly at Normandy that is why they had an easier time. But for Americans the sacrifice of 3000 lives became such a sacred event that noone talks about the mistakes that cost lives.
Then there was the idea of the two portable harbors that Winston Churchill came up with. This was crucial to the plan because it meant that it wouldn’t be neccessary to capture a port town and all the ports were heavily fortified. On the American harbor the Army Corps of Engineers decided to reengineer the design and only used half of the sea anchors. When gale came through the English channel the British harbor was damaged because it took the brunt of the gale.
But the American harbor which had the land to protect it was heavily damaged because it didn’t have enough sea anchors. So it’s not just New Orleans levees that Army Corps of engineers has screwed up on with devastating results.
[quote]
No one is slandering British courage or the commandos. The point is that British troops, generally, were badly led, from subalterns up to field marshals. The best people to ask, the Germans themselves, felt this way. Yes, you can think of plenty of exceptions (Slim being the best one). Broadly, generally, relatively, etc., the British Army did not do a great job in World War II. They also had a much steeper learning curve than U.S. forces. Witness the Desert War. When they did win big battles, it was usually by weight of men and material, not superior tactical or operational skill. [/quote]
I would expect the learning curve to be shorter for the Americans than the British. After all the Americans had the opportunity to see the Germans in action against the British. Most notably in the desert war. The biggest mistake the Germans made was going into Africa because they couldn’t give the campaign enough resorces to overwhelm the British.
So instead of accomplishing anything the fight was so drawn out it served as a training ground for the British and later the Americans to learn how to fight and beat the Germans.
I can’t believe you would even try to compare officer corps. The Russian army officer corps was purged by Stalin before the war. It was one of the reasons for the Russian losses.
You obviously don’t know the difference between a wannabe general and a real general. Wannabe generals (ie Hitler) are tacticians. Real generals are logisticians. Irwin Rommel said that long before the first shot is fired in a battle it is the logisticians who have determined the outcome.
Using logistics to build up men and materiel then use overwhelming force was the way to beat the Germans. That is how Montgomery rolled back Rommel. The prebattle bombardment at the battle of El Ala Mein was the heaviest in the history of war, until the Gulf war. At Stalingrad the Russians kept putting just enough men into the city to keep the Germans fighting there while on the other side of the river they amassed over a million men for the counter offensive.
That is why they were able to surround the city of Stalingrad cut off the sixth army from resupply and starve them into surrendering.
[quote]
In World War I though, they are only now really getting their due in the popular histories, they won that war on the battlefield, greatest victory in British military history.
Churchill is obviously worth reading. I am just saying it is not a good place to build a foundation of knowledge on the Second World War.
You are much better off knowing what Churchill had to say about something before you go delving into the writings of a lesser man who may have his head up his ass. Otherwise you could end up filling your head with bullshit first.
If it is your introduction to a subject, you are probably better off getting it from a (relatively) unbiased historian rather than from one of the principals whose dated history has enormous blind spots. I don’t see why this is so hard to understand. [/quote]
What you are not understanding is you are not better off starting with modern rethinks of the history written by authors who may or may not have any relevant life experiences to understand what they are writing about and who may have modern biases. With Churchill you get an author who was there and knew what the hell was going on. You are better off learning his perspective first because history has proven him a lot smarter than his critics.
[quote]
More importantly, as I said, he pretty much ignores the Eastern Front, due to both lack of information and Cold War politics. That was where the war was won. Period. The Germans never had less than 2/3 to 3/4 of their divisions there, usually including the Wehrmacht and SS’s best.
The battle of Britain was where the war was lost. The invasion of Greece caused the invasion of Russia to fail.
Very tenuous. The war was won and lost on the Russian steppe. Yes, Hitler got a late start, because of Italian bungling in the Balkans. It does not therefore follow that the war was lost in the Battle of Britain, regardless of Churchill’s (highly questionable) decision to send some of Britain’s best troops to support the Greeks.
Not at all. Airpower came of age in World War Two. The amount of training that the prewar Luftwaffe pilots recieved far exceeded the amount of training the wartime pilots received. The loss of pilots in the Battle of Britain was never made up for.
What was left of the experienced ME 109 pilots had to be deployed to Greece to support the invasion. By the time they had all been relocated back up North along with their support crews over a month had been lost for the invasion of Russia.
What does this have to do with anything? Air superiority was not a problem for the Germans during Barbarossa. [/quote]
You are so thick. Barbarossa was delayed by over a month because the fighter sqaudrons were deployed down to Greece to support the invasion there. The whole reason why the Germans had air superiority is because they waited until they were able to redeploy those squadrons back up north for Barbarossa. That is why Barbarossa was delayed by over a month.
[quote]
The German army was in the outer suburbs of Moscow when the first snows began to fall and the winter halted the advance. If they had gotten there a month earlier they could have taken Moscow. Moscow was the main railhead for all of Russia. If they had lost Moscow the Russians would have lost the ability to use the railroads to move men and materiel around.
The Germans also came incredibly close to victory in Russia in 1942. Read Robert Citino’s newest stuff on this point.[/quote]
Sure, if they had an extra month to take Moscow before the winter froze everything they probably would have won. If Hitler had let the sixth army break out of Stalingrad when they were first encircled that would have made a big difference too.